Hi Carl,
on 2023/7/3 23:57, Carl Love wrote:
> Kewen:
>
> On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 15:20 -0700, Carl Love wrote:
>> Segher never liked the above way of looking at the assembly. He
>> prefers:
>> gcc -S -g -mcpu=power8 -o vsx-vector-6-func-2lop.s vsx-vector-6-
>> func-
>> 2lop.c
>>
>> grep xxlor
Kewen:
On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 15:20 -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> Segher never liked the above way of looking at the assembly. He
> prefers:
> gcc -S -g -mcpu=power8 -o vsx-vector-6-func-2lop.s vsx-vector-6-
> func-
> 2lop.c
>
> grep xxlor vsx-vector-6-func-2lop.s | wc
> 34 68 516
>
On 6/30/23 6:50 PM, Carl Love wrote:
> With a little help from Peter and Julian Wang. Objdump decodes some of
> the xxlor instructions as xxmr instsructions. The xxmr is a new
> mnemonic which will be out in the next ISA. But objdump already
> produces it. So if you add the counts for grep xxlo
On 6/30/23 5:20 PM, Carl Love wrote:
> So, we have the issue that looking at the assembly gives different
> instruction counts then what
>
>dg-final { scan-assembler-times {\mxxlor\M} }
>
> comes up with???
I recommend not even counting xxlor at all, since the majority of
them come from vsx
Kewen:
On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 15:20 -0700, Carl Love wrote:
> So, went to look at the assembly to verify my comment on the
> difference
> being related to the loads. I decided to actually count the
> instructions just to verify the number in the assembly files.
> Before,
> I just looked at the ass
Kewen:
On Fri, 2023-06-30 at 11:37 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> on 2023/6/30 05:36, Carl Love wrote:
> > Kewen:
> >
> > On Wed, 2023-06-28 at 16:35 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > > > Yea, I was going with a runnable test and didn't include the
> > > > instruction counts. Added back in.
Hi Carl,
on 2023/6/30 05:36, Carl Love wrote:
> Kewen:
>
> On Wed, 2023-06-28 at 16:35 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>>> Yea, I was going with a runnable test and didn't include the
>>> instruction counts. Added back in. Rather then doing by processor
>>> version (P8, P9, P10) I was able to do it by
Kewen:
On Wed, 2023-06-28 at 16:35 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> > Yea, I was going with a runnable test and didn't include the
> > instruction counts. Added back in. Rather then doing by processor
> > version (P8, P9, P10) I was able to do it by BE/LE. The
> > instruction
> > counts were the same
Hi Carl,
on 2023/6/22 06:42, Carl Love wrote:
> On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 15:17 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
>> Hi Carl,
>>
>> on 2023/5/31 04:46, Carl Love wrote:
>>> GCC maintainers:
>>>
>>> The following patch takes the tests in vsx-vector-6-p7.h, vsx-
>>> vector-
>>> 6-p8.h, vsx-vector-6-p9.h and reor
On Mon, 2023-06-19 at 15:17 +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Hi Carl,
>
> on 2023/5/31 04:46, Carl Love wrote:
> > GCC maintainers:
> >
> > The following patch takes the tests in vsx-vector-6-p7.h, vsx-
> > vector-
> > 6-p8.h, vsx-vector-6-p9.h and reorganizes them into a series of
> > smaller
> > test
Hi Carl,
on 2023/5/31 04:46, Carl Love wrote:
> GCC maintainers:
>
> The following patch takes the tests in vsx-vector-6-p7.h, vsx-vector-
> 6-p8.h, vsx-vector-6-p9.h and reorganizes them into a series of smaller
> test files by functionality rather than processor version.
>
> The patch has bee
GCC maintainers:
The following patch takes the tests in vsx-vector-6-p7.h, vsx-vector-
6-p8.h, vsx-vector-6-p9.h and reorganizes them into a series of smaller
test files by functionality rather than processor version.
The patch has been tested on Power 10 with no regressions.
Please let me know
12 matches
Mail list logo
